About your Search

20120901
20120930
Search Results 0 to 14 of about 15 (some duplicates have been removed)
, two of the three organizations testifying today did not exist. and the third, the f.b.i., was a very different organization than it is today. focused on domestic crime as it had been for quite a while. obviously in the aftermath of the terrorist attacks on america of 9/11, 2001, congress and the executive branch created the department of homeland security and then pursuant to the 9/11 commission recommendation created the national counterterrorism center. the f.b.i. essentially recreated itself into a first rate domestic counterterrorism intelligence agency. in addition to carrying out all its other responsibilities. in his absence we should thank director mueller for what i think is an extraordinary job he's done in overseeing this historic transformation and to thank the two of you, secretary napolitano, and director olsen, for what you have done together these changes represent the most significant reforms of america's national security organizations since the 1940's, at the beginning of the cold war. it's not coincidental since after 9/11 we understood we were facing a very diffe
came during a hearing on u.s. security threats. janet napolitano and the fbi associate director also testified. this is an hour and 50 minutes. >> the hearing will come to order. good morning to all. this is our annual, our committee's annual home lapd threat assessment hearing -- homeland threat assessment hearing. i want to welcome back janet napolitano, secretary of department of homeland security, and matt olsen, and the associate deputy director, kevin perkins, who is standing in for director bob mueller today. the director had to undergo unexpected surgery resulting from complications associated with recent dental treatment. he's unable to join us today. but we welcome mr. perkins in his stead. we with confidence we extend best regards to the director for a speedy recovery. this will be the final time that i have the privilege of chairing this annual hearing, so i want to use this opportunity to thank each of you for your leadership in our nation's homeland security and counterterrorism efforts through you to thank those who work with you in each of your departments or agencies
, is that on september 11, 2001, two of the three organizations testifying today did not exist. and the third, the f.b.i., was a very different organization than it is today. focused on domestic crime as it had been for quite a while. obviously in the aftermath of the terrorist attacks on america of 9/11, 2001, congress and the executive branch created the department of homeland security and then pursuant to the 9/11 commission recommendation created the national counterterrorism center. the f.b.i. essentially recreated itself into a first rate domestic counterterrorism intelligence agency. in addition to carrying out all its other responsibilities. in his absence we should thank director mueller for what i think is an extraordinary job he's done in overseeing this historic transformation and to thank the two of you, secretary napolitano, and director olsen, for what you have done together these changes represent the most significant reforms of america's national security organizations since the 1940's, at the beginning of the cold war. sinceot coincidental after 9/11 we understood we were facing a very
that was not enough to warrant an investigation. there was nothing the fbi could point to which would single him out for special investigation or attention. was this an intelligence failure in wisconsin? >do you think there could have been things done to prevent this attack that were not done? >> i think the fbi late at where the problem was. they're really good at investigating after the fact, after things happen, but we had a delicate balance between people's constitutional right to assemble and express their speech, however weil, but we also have to be board cleaning and look at ideologies that have long histories of -- forward- looking and the ideologies that have long histories of spawning violence. i'm not talking about doing covert operations and people with extremist police, but i think it is important we have an overt monitoring police system on what is causing people to act of violence may. was this an intelligence failure? i do not think it is. but one thing the department of homeland security and the fbi could have done -- where was the warning the that sikhs and muslims have been victim
back and confirmed what the fbi report said from earlier that year, which had been kind of pushed under. we got lucky in that times square bombing. we solved that one. thank god the bomb did not off. but you know, we have had 10,000 people die in that war. thank god we got osama bin laden and it was a police action. thank you so much. host: how should we mark the day? last night on facebook we ask all of you to comment on how america has changed in the 11 years. host: you can put your comments on facebook about how we should mark this day or how america has changed. here is "the boston globe" this morning. "a quieter 9/11, after an intense anniversary last year, families welcome a setback." "for some, it means scaling back." "some communities have decided to scale back, prompted by a growing feeling that it may be time to move on. nearly every ceremony will be smaller this year, even after the epicenter of the attacks has stripped the ceremony of its politicians who have in the past read literary or religious policies. instead, bagpipers and a huge chorus will provide the music. george
to the state department that there were increasing security concerns in benghazi? the fbi says it is too dangerous to be in benghazi, which is why none of them are there now. is that because the situation has worsened, or was it always too dangerous? >> as we determine the details of what took place there and how that attack took place, it became clear that there were terrorists who had planned that attack. that is when i came to that conclusion. as to who was involved, what specific groups were involved, i think the investigation that is ongoing hopefully will determine that. >> about a day after? >> it took a while to get some feedback as to what exactly happened at that location. >> there was a threat intelligence reporting back -- eight to read -- there was a thread of intelligence reporting that groups were seeking to coalesce, but there was not anything specific, and certainly not anything specific to the consulate that i am aware of. as far as the risks of the fbi reported, you really would have to ask them why they made that determination. >> did you make the state department awa
circumstances. this is a job for the fbi, not the cia. by the way, by and large, most of the information that we knew, we knew it about the guy coming in to try, and it was derived from foreign. our base of knowledge of him was foreign intelligence. to me the right entry point was enemy combatant, n.h. -- agent of war, deal with it that way. the roots of the information are that we should treat this as a law enforcement problem. in broad measure, my sense is that that is how we should do with it. thank you all for coming here this afternoon. i hope you have left with more questions than it had and you came in. that was my intent. they you for giving me the opportunity. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] >> i watch c-span because i feel it is important to be knowledgeable about what is going on in the world and i feel that c-span gives the most information on what is going on in a certain suspect -- subject, while lots of television is not do that. >> c-span, created by america's cable companies in 1979. drop
department that there were increasing security concerns in benghazi? the fbi says it is too dangerous to be in benghazi, which is why none of them are there now. is that because the>> as we dets of what took place there and how that attack took place, it became clear that there were terrorists who had planned that attack. that is when i came to that conclusion. as to who was involved, what specific groups were involved, i think the investigation that is ongoing hopefully will determine that. >> about a day after? >> it took a while to get some feedback as to what exactly happened at that location. >> there was a thread of intelligence reporting that groups were seeking to coalesce, but there was not anything specific, and certainly not anything specific to the consulate that i am aware of. as far as the risks of the fbi reported, you really would have to ask them why they made that determination. >> did you make the state department aware of the intelligence? >> the intelligence that we all get is broadly shared among intelligence agencies and all integency partners. >> i wanted to go
think that is more however a law enforcement, f.b.i., justice department sort of role to investigate those domestic terrorism. homeland security is more responsible for guarding our borders, northern, southern, people coming by water and people coming by air. as well as a lot of coordination with local law enforcement. so, they have some law enforcement responsibilities, but if you're talking about going to investigate a group who you think may -- guest: congressman, i need to jump in we need to go to the white house where they're going to d a moment of silence. we'll come back to our discussion. host: a moment of silence this morning at the white house with the president and the first lady. you heard the bells ring at 8:46 a.m. eastern time. the time when the north tower was struck by those airplanes 11 years ago. fearly 3,000 americans died -- nearly 3,000 americans died that day with the attacks on the world trade center and attacks at the pentagon here in washington. our cameras are up in new york where the world trade center memorial service today, also there on your screen you
clip] >> there is an fbi investigation ongoing. we looked to that investigation to give us the definitive word as to what transpired. putting together the best information we have available to us today. our current assessment is that what happened in benghazi was initially a spontaneous reaction to what had just transpired hours before in cairo. almost a copycat of the demonstrations against our facility in cairo, which were prompted by the video. >> these territotraitors, the wy they acted, them choosing specific dates for this so- called demonstration, i think this leaves us with no doubt that this was preplanned, predetermined. host: here's the headline in the washington times -- on facebook, getting some of your comments on our questions on should the u.s. government control web content? an independent in pennsylvania, walid. caller: how are you? i think they should pull the video. host: why? caller: it's not about freedom of speech. we are supposed to have all these type of freedoms. by the same token, what are you seeing as far as cameras on everything? it's just free
task force to include more federal partners, including the fbi, the intelligence community is devoting more resources to identify networks, which have strengthen protections so workers know their rights. most of all we are going after the traffickers. eams nti-trafficking t are dismantling their networks. we're putting them where they belong, behind bars. but with more than 20 million victims around the world, more than 20 million, we have a lot more to do. that is why this year i directed my administration to increase efforts, and today i can announce a series of that additional steps we will take. we will do more to spot it and stop it. we will prepare a new assessment of human trafficking in united states so we understand the scope and scale of the problem. we will strengthen training so investigators and law enforcement are better equipped to take action. and treat victims as victims, not as criminals. we will work with amtrak and bus and truck inspectors so they are on the look out. we will help educators spot the signs as well and bettors turf -- better serve those who are vulner
heard from a friend of mine, fbi agent, the media does not think so. who is supposed to stand up for these guys? you know what i am staying? host: how do you think the administration handled libya? guest: let me just say, i have worked for both republican and democratic administrations. i really think that it is unfair to level such a criticism of president obama. he has been a very strong leader on protecting this country, as president bush was. both presidents have put the security of the american people as job number one, as they should. they have both been strong in that area, it is unfair. libya was a tragic event. ambassador stephens died two weeks ago today. the responsibility for guarding our embassies in conflict overseas, there is not an american military protecting our embassies. it is the host country that provides perimeter security around different establishments. so, let us down? in cairo? the egyptian government did not have enough security to run the embassy, which is why the crowd went over the wall. it was the libyans who led us down in been gauzy, when ambassa
that threatens the safety and liberty of the sih community. while the f.b.i. tracks the overall number of hate crimes, it doesn't target sikhs despite that we are seeing that sikhs are singled out because of their appearance and faith. that's why this resolution denounces the violence befallen this community or calling on the department of justice to finally be documenting and quantifying hate crimes against sikh americans. as many as three out of four sikh boys endure torment and bullying from their peers and so we're educators across the country to help end violence. and we're erging law enforcement officers in every locality to do all they can to prevent violence against this and all communities. america was founded on the principles of religious freedom, acceptance and tolerance. let's make sure that every american can live safely and in peace. let's make sure that every american is protected. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas, mr. poe, for five minutes. mr. poe: thank you, mr. speaker. over the last week, we have watched as
on defense. also on the f.b.i., on border security. you know what, we had a proposal to pay for part of that to prevent the sequester with the buffett rule and some other cuts. our republican colleagues talked about the terrible consequences of the cuts but they just don't want to pay for them. they don't want to ask the american people to contribute one more penny. thank you, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from michigan, mr. levin, reserves. the gentleman from michigan, mr. camp, is recognized. mr. camp: i'm prepared to close. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan, mr. levin. mr. levin: i've been thinking this is really mislabeled. why don't we call it the mitt romney rule act of 2012? he paid the return he indicated less than 15%. he earned many, many millions. he knew what the code now says. he could have sent some of the money that was not taxed to the government. all he had to do -- he could use a credit card. but he hasn't done that. so i mean this is mislabeled. it has nothing to do with mr. buffett. there's
Search Results 0 to 14 of about 15 (some duplicates have been removed)

Terms of Use (10 Mar 2001)